I agree about the small doses!   For my part, I have definitely seen enough of Irene Adler as a major character in a
plotline.   However, what the series has always excelled at is the canonical nod, or the insider comment here and
there.   For that reason, yes I'd really enjoy hearing an occasional offhand comment,  or some tangible reference
(like even that rose from the deleted scene),  but with preferably with little or no explanation with it.   If Lara Pulver
were to reappear, I'd rather it be as we saw her in series 3,  only VERY small doses, alluding to either a mind palace
appearance or a real one, happening mostly (cleverly) off-camera.   I feel the same way about Moriarty.


The viewers' imaginations are  more than capable of taking any small bits they throw at us and figuring things out.
(obviously, look at all sorts of fan fiction  out there ).     I guess I don't need to see another Sherlock/Jeanine type
relationship spelled out.    Or a Sherlock/The Woman type relationship.  The core relationship (with John) is already
beautfully drawn.   The rest can be alluded to,  if it serves the central story.  But not made to be central itself.


 

I agree and never want to see her again,,,but I can't help feeling Steven just likes to see her with her kit off! (Sorry!).
I have been thinking about what Irene said, though: 
The Ice Man and the Virgin.

Mycroft, not interested...
Sherlock...open to persuasion?

Last edited by besleybean (November 4, 2014 5:31 pm)

NO

Well, if she's still a minion of Moriarty and Moriarty comes back (somehow) in S4, then maybe she can be killed off for real this time. * Says KP hopefully*

I think killing her off would involve interaction with Sherlock in some way - a storyline at least.  We would have to see how he reacted to her death. 

The one thing that I didn't feel was explored well with Irene was her background - how and why she got herself into such a situation that she needed that protection.  Had she started off going down a sort of spy route and used the "dominatrix" job to facilitate that?  Or had she gone down the dominatrix route first, and been fed so many secrets that she became a risk?  (Which maybe fits more with Doyle, and the fact that Irene didn't start out with any sinister intentions). 

I've always been a bit uncomfortable with her job, though - that somebody so intelligent, strong, independent and potentially powerful would choose a career which is about catering to other people's fantasies (no offence to pro-dommes intended - and I'm sure many of us are in careers that involve catering to other people in some way ... it just seemed possibly slightly off for her character?).  So that suggests that first option - that she chose it because it was such a great way to gather sensitive information. 

It was never quite clear what her relationship with Moriarty was - presumably she had gone to him first (as a consulting criminal?) and was exchanging information for ... what?  Not protection, because she needs to be rescued later.  Or had he approached her because of her unique position?  Did I miss that explanation?

Anyway, the back story would be interesting, but she's best out of the country, popping up in mind palaces and sending roses .

Liberty wrote:

The one thing that I didn't feel was explored well with Irene was her background - how and why she got herself into such a situation that she needed that protection.  Had she started off going down a sort of spy route and used the "dominatrix" job to facilitate that?  Or had she gone down the dominatrix route first, and been fed so many secrets that she became a risk?  (Which maybe fits more with Doyle, and the fact that Irene didn't start out with any sinister intentions). 

I think the latter.. it seems odd to go to some lenghts to collect all this information without an actual clue what to do with it afterwards, and she said that it was Moriarty who gave her the ideas. So that would make more sense to me..

 

Last edited by Zatoichi (November 5, 2014 12:54 pm)